Friday, April 2, 2010

On the 28th of March 2010, Chee Soon Juan commented to the Shin Min Daily, rebutting the accusations by Mdm Loh Woon Lee Lina (otherwise known as Mrs Linda Chiam, wife of Mr Chiam See Tong) that Mr Chiam See Tong was ousted from the Singapore Democratic Party by Chee.

The article was then translated to English by The Straits Times on 29 March 2010.

Appearing cornered by Mrs Chiam, Chee Soon Juan "told the Chinese-language daily he did not want to take the issue further".

However, on 2 April 2010, the Straits Times published a forum letter written by Chee Soon Juan. He started the letter with "Mrs Chiam See Tong's comments in Monday's report... is regrettable". And then he continued to explain that "no one forced Chiam out".

What happened between the 3-4 days? Nobody knows.

Going back on his words, Chee Soon Juan went ahead to defend himself and stressed that Mr Chiam was wrong in that Mr Chiam "spoke at a Singapore Press Club and attacked his own party".

The forum letter was not posted on the SDP's website. This is the first time SDP is not posting its letter written to the press on its website.

Apparently, Chee Soon Juan had lied to the press, saying that he did not want to pursue the issue further, so as to escape from the questions that are posed to him by reporters.

This is yet another stark instance where the integrity of Chee Soon Juan is exposed.

Thinking back, do you believe him when he did the hunger strike? You shouldn't, because he drank glucose during the "hunger strike".

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Their so-called proposals are flimsy and clearly not well-thought out, and they spent half the time taking digs at the PAP instead of elaborating on their proposals. Although the forum was meant to showcase SDP's alternative economics proposals, it degenerated to the usual criticisms of minister's salaries, calls for accountability for Temasek and GIC losses, lack of transparency in GIC and Temasek, barbs against the Lee family, etc.-- accompanied by the expected smirking and cheers from their regular attendees.

Sad.

Notwithstanding the above, what they presented would be demolished by any Economics 101 student. Shows they just don't have the requisite economics expertise within the party.

Sad.

Examples of the proposals:

Reduce URA/JTC rentals and lower the selling prices of HDB flats.

Minimum Wage

Scale back GLC's and MNC's

Provide more support to SME's

Allow workers to form independent trade unions

And the best one:

Pay 18 months of benefits on a sliding scale to ALL retrenched workers, although it was not clear who would foot the bill-- taxpayers or companies.

Why these proposals are not well-thought outSimple logic tells us one cannot change one part of a system without upsetting the rest of it. So if the govt reduces URA/JTC rentals and HDB prices, what could possibly happen?

For rentals, either the tenants pocket the savings (ie they charge the sub-tenants the current rates and pocket the difference) or they pass it through. If the former, it won't really benefit the economy at large. If the latter, the rental market could collapse as businesses flock to cheap URA/JTC properties and desert commercial space. The rental index will crash overnight. Private landlords could then be driven into negative equity and foreclosures if they can't come up with cash flow.

Ditto lowering HDB prices. Either it creates a mad rush for new HDB flats (and for the chance to make a killing) or it depresses the prices of resale flats and likely drive resale flat owners into negative equity and foreclosures by banks.

The collapse in HDB prices will then spread to private property as buyers avoid condos and go for HDB.

Private property owners will then be sitting on negative equity and they will not be able to sell out. Market activity will be paralysed. Foreclosures may well follow and property prices will crash, hurting everyone.

Anyone who has done central banking would certainly understand the importance of price stability. One simply cannot administer price shocks to a system in equilibrium without causing massive repercussions. That's why every central bank in the world has as its mission to ensure price stability and economic growth with minimal inflation.

Did SDP ever think of that?

Like it or not, we are all stuck. Stuck with our mortgage, stuck with our valuations, stuck with our repayments.

If a market crash happens and people lose their homes thru foreclosures and others sink into negative equity due to lowered valuations, they have no choice but to accept it. But if the govt causes a spectacular property devaluation by selling new HDB flats at bargain basement prices, that govt is not going to last too long in power.

Much as we want, we can't wind back the clock and sell flats at 1980's prices any more.

Ditto reducing reliance on MNC's, scaling back GLC's, dismantling Temasek and nurturing SME's by taking away tax incentives from MNC's and using it to help SME's.

These are very laudable goals but they have massive repercussions and will cause much unemployment, significant adjustments and extensive structural changes before the goal can be achieved.

I estimate it'll take more than two terms of govt to even achieve half of these goals-- and that's assuming the disgruntled property owners and workers who are displaced as part of these sweeping changes do not vote the govt out before the grand plan can be carried out.

Did SDP think of that?

Minimum wage seems very popular among "opposition" parties these days, although I don't see how it can solve our problems (which is either (i) that Singaporean's wages, in real terms, are slipping or (ii) productivity in Singapore is decreasing).

For (i), the minimum wage applies only to the bottom rung of workers, so it really doesn't help the executives or managers. It won't arrest our continued slide in real wages, when compared to other countries.

For (ii), it's true that minimum wage may force bosses to find ways to increase efficiency and productivity. However, SDP presented stats to show Singaporeans work the longest hours among 12 countries surveyed by ILO. So the logical conclusion is that minimum wage will likely cause bosses to get staff to work longer hours or increase their job scope.

In other words, we could be back to square 1.

Did SDP think of that?

I don't think SDP or other parties really understand the rationale behind minimum wage. They were implemented by advanced countries not to tackle productivity problems, but because of workers' rights.

They came about because unions wanted to make sure their workers got a good deal.

Thus minimum wage is always implemented with limits on the no of working hours per week.

Without proposing such limits here, implementing minimum wage is useless.

But most importantly, don't be misled-- MW is to improve workers' welfare, it's not a productivity tool first and foremost.

Last-- some observations on the SDP leadership.

After 20 years, Dr Chee is still charismatic as ever, still as eloquent, still as much fire in the belly.

The same cannot be said of his team.

Mohd Jufrie looks so tired, as does Gandhari.

John Tan looks so mild-mannered.

Sylvester Lim looks so out of his depth. No wonder, the guy is not even 30.

But what is truly amazing about this party is their fighting spirit. Despite the crippling lawsuits, they have not given up.

Monday, March 29, 2010

This article appeared first on Lianhe Zaobao on Sunday (28 March 2010) and then got translated into English on Straits Times on Monday (29 March 2010). The article titled "Chiam's SDP exit: Wife speaks up" is the first time Mrs Chiam is speaking on the issue and is revealing on the integrity of Chee Soon Juan. The integrity that of a liar and an opportunist.

A LONG-STANDING spat between Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong and former protege Chee Soon Juan has resurfaced, with Mr Chiam's wife and Dr Chee engaged in a fresh exchange of views.

The row centres on Dr Chee's role in Mr Chiam's dismissal as secretary-general of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) in 1993 and his eventual exit from the party in 1996.

In an interview with the Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao published yesterday, Mrs Lina Chiam dismissed comments that Dr Chee made in an earlier interview with the same newspaper that he had tried to persuade Mr Chiam to stay on.

She instead accused Dr Chee, who succeeded Mr Chiam as SDP chief, of ousting her husband from the party he founded in 1980.

Mrs Chiam - who told the newspaper she was speaking with her husband's knowledge and authority - said that despite the SDP central executive committee's initial attempts in 1993 to make Mr Chiam stay, it held a disciplinary hearing in August that year, where it decided to expel him.

She said: "If he (Dr Chee) really wanted to keep Mr Chiam, he could have politely declined the position of secretary-general. Or when the central executive was taking a vote on whether to take disciplinary action against Chiam, he could have opposed the dismissal."

She noted that Dr Chee wrote to the Speaker of Parliament to tell him of Mr Chiam's ouster, and asked for any further necessary action to be taken.

The Constitution says that an MP who loses membership of the party he represented in a general election automatically loses his seat in Parliament.

Mr Chiam was elected as Potong Pasir MP in 1984 on the SDP ticket. He contested his expulsion from the SDP in court and left the party only in 1996 for the Singapore's People Party.

Mrs Chiam said: "The People's Action Party tried all means to defeat my husband, but failed after several general elections. But the SDP achieved it effortlessly with one stroke of the pen and did the PAP a great service."

Mr Chiam asked her to clarify the matter with Lianhe Zaobao after it interviewed Dr Chee, she said, adding that she wanted to set the record straight: "For the sake of my husband and to let the younger generation understand 'Uncle Chiam', I have to step forward to clarify matters. He did not turn his back on the SDP. When we were forced to leave, our hearts were filled with anguish."

Dr Chee told Lianhe Zaobao in his interview that he tried to persuade Mr Chiam - who had differences with the central executive in May 1993 - not to resign. He said he went to Mr Chiam's office several times to withdraw his resignation, "and told him he was still regarded as our leader".

Yesterday, Dr Chee reiterated that neither he, nor anyone else, forced Mr Chiam out. He told Shin Min Daily News that the SDP spent one month persuading Mr Chiam to change his mind: "But Chiam insisted that he would return to the SDP as its secretary-general only if the SDP central executive committee gave him the maximum power to appoint or remove any central executive or party member."

He also told the Chinese-language daily he did not want to take the issue further.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

If Chee Soon Juan were to be believed, the Young Democrats is indeed seeing some new faces, faces that are perhaps too young.

The legal age to be a member of any political parties in Singapore is 21. These chaps (see photo below) are aged 15-16, and still studying secondary school. Uniformed students should not be involved with politics. But yet, as shown in the photo, they participated in the Singapore Democratic Party 30th Anniversary dinner. These chaps are Kenneth Lin, Sebastian Puay and Darren Choy.

The most prominent underage YD sympathiser is Kenneth Lin (16 years old). Studying in St Andrew's Secondary School, this secondary 4 student has been SDP's latest new toy (after Alex Tan) in the social media front. Recently, he created a Facebook group to get Singaporeans to sign a petition demanding Lee Kuan Yew to apologise. A brief glance on the list of petitioners showed that a huge majority of them are fake.

A new face is Sebastian Puay Tong Kehl. Born in 1993, he is still currently studying in Maris Stella High School.

Last but not least, Darren Choy, also a student of the Maris Stella High School.

Singapore Democratic Party's dirty tactics of using teens as proxies should not be condoned.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Rather chivalrously, SDP states that it will fight for the Bt Panjang residents.

It then reminds us that the residents have some form of economic power that they must exercise to fight back.

Besides all the talk and sending out letters, one wonders whether SDP's way of fighting for the residents is simply to urge them to fight back (while it sniggers from the side-lines).

Otherwise, SDP could also be planning to carry out yet another round of petition signing, which incidentally got nowhere the last time round. Of course, I am sure it will also NOT fail to seize the opportunity to sell more of its newsletters as a form of side-income.

Incidentally, perhaps this fight it now threatens (and is hopefully legal) will also be considered part of the series of activities to joyfully celebrate its 30th Anniversary. This is in addition to the gala dinner and coming public forum it is organising.

(By the way, I am also wonder whether the letter sent to Mr Teo Ho Pin really had a photo of a rather jovial looking John Tan on it. If so, I am sure Mr Teo would be fuming at the deliberate snigger on John's face that he seems rather adept at making.)

Friday, March 26, 2010

I saw the Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan selling his party newspaper at a hawker centre.

I was having coffee when two men and a woman appeared, all in red polo shirts, carrying armloads of newspapers. The slender, youthful-looking bespectacled man in the centre was Dr Chee. He did not give out his name. I could recognize him from the photos I had seen in newspapers and on the internet.

He did not make any speeches or criticize the government, merely saying he knew people had problems with wages being cut and held up a copy of his newspaper, asking if anyone would like to buy.

He was studiously ignored by the people, who went on eating and drinking, though several fell silent while others lowered their voices.

An elderly couple passing by stopped and the old man bought a newspaper from him. "Thank you," he said.

The woman with him approached me with a copy of the newspaper. "No, thanks," I said and got up, having finished my coffee.

A little later, as I was passing by the hawker centre, he was gone.

The people went on eating and drinking under burning lights amid the surrounding darkness.

I enjoyed walking in the dark past the silvery haloes of light of street lamps.

The night air was soothing in its tranquillity.

I love Singapore, the peace and quiet it offers if that is what we want.

I know. Like the trees spreading their branches but solidly rooted to the earth, I can't be budged from my comfort zone.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

The following is extracted from Lianhe Zaobao. Its reporter conducted an interview with Singapore Democratic Party Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan. In the interview, Chee mentioned that he occasionally receives foreign funding.

徐顺全：现在是民主党30年来巅峰时刻

Chee Soon Juan: This is the peak of Singapore Democratic Party's peak in 30 years

Referring to the claim that Temasek Review is being operated by the Singapore Democratic Party, with the aim of discrediting the other opposition parties to strengthen SDP, Chee Soon Juan denied it. Chee: "We do not criticise the affairs of other opposition parties."

民主党成立30年，巅峰时刻是什么时候？最低潮的时刻又是什么时候？

Singapore Democratic Party is 30 years old. When's the peak? When's the trough?

徐顺全博士（48岁）的答复似乎会让人们大感意外。他说现在是它的巅峰时刻。

Dr Chee Soon Juan's (48 years old) answer was surprising. He said the SDP is at its peak now.

“我相信民主党还没有达到真正的顶峰，不过到目前为止，现阶段必然是最光辉的。”

"I believe Singapore Democratic Party has not reached its actual peak, but as of now, we are at our highest point."

Chee says that SDP has attracted many new members over the past 5 years. The quality of the members is higher than before. The newcomers not only provide new political perspectives, they are also savvy with new media, empowering the party in ways it has never done before.

For instance, 5 years ago, Chee Soon Juan wanted to organise a 25th anniversary dinner. However, due to scarce resources, he called off the idea. Today, SDP not only organised its dinner at a hotel in Orchard Road, it also published its first 80-page full colour commemorative magazine.

他认为最重要的是全体中央执行委员的团结。

Chee believes that of upmost importance is the unity among the Central Executive Committee Members.

In the 1991 General Election, then Singapore Democratic Party's Secretary-General Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir SMC), Chairman Ling How Doong (Bukit Gombak SMC) and Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central SMC) won their seats in Parliament. Since Chiam's departure from the party in 1996, there had been no representatives from SDP in the parliament. As such, SDP under Chiam See Tong should be considered as the peak period of the party. However, Chee Soon Juan thinks that was the lowest point instead.

"A few weeks after I joined the SDP, I could already feel the strong tension in the ties between the party leaders. The SDP back then wasn't a party. It was never led by a team with a common ideology. It was just a group of individuals with different beliefs. When incidents occur, everyone has their own views and wants to pursue their own paths, resulting in disunity."

Chiam See Tong single-handedly brought then NUS Psychology Lecturer Chee Soon Juan into the party in 1992 and fielded him in the Marine Parade GRC by-election. Then PM Goh Chok Tong wanted to Teo Chee Hean to be in Parliament and arranged for Marine Parade GRC MPs to resign so that a by-election could be held.

Chee Soon Juan lost in the election. The following year, he got fired by NUS after he was found to be overstating his taxi claims. Chiam See Tong initially supported him, but subsequently passed a motion to the CEC to punish him. Other CEC members didn't agree with Chiam's actions, leading to a stalemate within the party. Chiam then resigned as Secretary-General.

Chee Soon Juan continued: "The meeting when Chiam tendered his resignation, was held at my place. The following month, I repeatedly went to Chiam's office to request him to keep his resignation letter, and expressed my loyalty to him."

Despite Chee Soon Juan's explanation, the fact is that SDP CEC went on to vote to expel Chiam See Tong from the party. If Chiam were expelled, he would lose his parliamentary seat and the opposition would lose a voice in parliament. Singapore's Constitution prohibits MPs from switching party membership. Chiam See Tong fought hard to retain his party membership. In 1997, Chiam left the party and set up the Singapore People Party where he became the Secretary-General and retained his Potong Pasir seat.

詹时中事后对外表示他是被徐顺全逼走的。

Chiam See Tong procliamed that he was ousted by Chee Soon Juan.

徐顺全辩称詹时中的“一言堂”作风，才是其他中委背弃他的原因。

Chee Soon Juan claims that Chiam got ousted because of his dictatorship style.

“即使在林孝谆等党领导人眼里，詹时中的领导地位也是毫无争议的。不过，我们希望他能以更加民主的方式做事。”

"Even in the eyes of Ling How Doong and other members, Chiam See Tong's leadership was undeniable. However, we hoped he could be more democratic in the way he carried out the tasks."

他说：“直到今天，我仍对詹时中不怀芥蒂，还出席了他担任议员25周年的晚宴。如果在外头碰面，我也会跟他打招呼。”

Chee: "Until today, I don't bear any grudges against Chiam See Tong. I even attended his 25th Anniversary Dinner. Even when I meet him in the streets, I would greet him."

Chiam introduced Chee Soon Juan into the party in 1992. Chee was seen as the hope of the Opposition and a rising star in the political realm. Until today, Chiam is still in parliament, but Chee had never made it in.

When asked if he has ever regretted joining politics, Chee said: "Never. I'm not saying this because I want to be a hero. I really love teaching and research work. Those were my first love. However, fighting for democracy in Singapore is an even greater and urgent mission. I have no regrets."

他在2006年破产，一家现在住在大巴窑的三房式组屋。妻子黄志美（48岁）留在家里照顾三个分别是10岁、7岁和5岁的孩子。

Bankrupted in 2006, he stays in a 3-room flat in Toa Payoh. His wife Huang Chih Mei (48 years old) stays at home to look after 3 children aged 10, 7 and 5 years old.

夫妇没有工作怎么养家？

So how does the couple derive an income without a job?

夫妇俩都没有工作，那怎么养家？询及收入来源时，他表示多数从卖书赚来，偶尔也接受亲戚朋友的接济。

The couple is not employed. When asked about income, Chee expressed that he derives the majority of his income via the sale of his books. Occasionally, he also receives financial help from relatives.

“我们过着简单的生活。有多余的资源，我都会投入民主抗争。”

"We lead a simple life. I contribute my excess resources to the party cause."

There are rumours that Chee Soon Juan is financially supported by foreign agencies, and that's why he could continue protesting without any worries. After asking him several times, Chee said: "I'm a scholar, I occasionally receive foreign funding for my research. My works have bagged awards, and I participate in foreign research programmes."

哪方面的研究，是有关民主的研究吗？他含糊地说：“嗯，或者是人类行为之类的。”

What kind of research? Is it related to democracy? Chee dodgingly replied: "Hmmm, it's about human behaviour."

“打不打算脱离穷籍这个问题不应该问我”

"The question of whether I want to leave poverty shouldn't be answered by me"

Similar to the late Opposition leader Jeyaratnam, Chee Soon Juan was also sued for slander by government leaders, failed to pay the damage and finally was declared a bankrupt in February 2006, losing the chance to contest in the 2006 General Election. The difference is that Jeyaratnam strives hard to recover from his bankruptcy and finally succeeded before his death. Jeyaratam even set up a new political party and prepared for the GE. However, Chee Soon Juan had no plans to recover from his bankruptcy.

Chee: "Whether to recover from poverty is not a decision I make. You should ask Lee Kuan Yew. If he's not afraid of me, he could call off the debt. If he doesn't stop me from contesting in the GE, gives me the green light, I will immediately apply to be delisted as a bankrupt."

民主党在2006年大选时的得票率是反对党中平均得票率最低的，徐顺全把这都怪到主流媒体头上。

In 2006, SDP performed the worst compared to other political parties. Chee Soon Juan blamed this on the mainstream media.

他认为主流媒体刻意丑化他，以致至民主党在大选时的表现不如其他反对党。

He feels that the mainstream media portrayed a very negative image of him, causing SDP to perform badly at the poll.

"Because SDP proposes alternative economic plans, we also encourage major changes to the current political system, therefore the government sees us as a threat and wants to get rid of us. The mainstream media also points their guns at us."

下次大选将以网络作为主要竞选渠道

New media as the main site for political battle in the next GE

为突破主流媒体的局限，他声称民主党在下次大选时将以互联网作为主要的竞选渠道。

To break free from the constraints of mainstream media, he claims that SDP would use new media as the main platform for the party in the coming GE.

尽管如此，他还是认为民主党要在大选中获胜，必须靠主流媒体。

Despite this, he believes the party needs the mainstream media if it wants to win in the GE.

“我非常有信心，主流媒体如果肯公平地报道我们的想法和信息，民主党肯定可以把候选人送入国会。”

"I'm very confident that if the mainstream media reports fairly about our beliefs and messages, the SDP would definitely enter parliament."

The Wayang Party then changed its name to Temasek Review, and also lambasted other opposition parties. TR's owner is anonymous. Referring to accusations that Wayang Party is operated by SDP so as to alleviate SDP's standing among the opposition parties, Chee denied them.

他说：“我们不做诋毁其他反对党的事。”

Chee: "We don't belittle other opposition."

那他跟其他反对党领袖的关系有多好？他表示虽不至于称兄道弟，但彼此都不时保持联系，也依然遵守不在大选时进行三角战的游戏规则。

So how is his relationship with other political party leaders? He said that they are not as close as brothers, but they stay in contact and avoid 3-cornered fights in GEs.

Chee's eldest daughter Chee An Lin (10 years old) sang the national anthem and recited the pledge. Singapore has long stopped the practice of singing the national anthem before the commencement of activities. The singing stunned many of the participants.

Chee Soon Juan frequently exposes his children into the limelight. For instance, they accompany him to court and wait for him outside the prison as he gets released. Is he doing this to win over compassion from the public? Chee: "Without family support, I find it hard to carry on. Looking at the kids, will remind me that I have to strive to give them a better Singapore."

Saturday, March 20, 2010

In a recent comment sent to the SDP website on an article titled “Let's get serious about alternative: Democrats to hold public discussion”, BryanT proposed that various Opposition parties exploit the coming public forum organised by SDP to collectively develop an economic plan.

As part of the comment, BryanT also provided a link to his FB note which explained out why he is making this suggestion.

Essentially, the note provided the background that since a public forum organised last year, no progress had been made on Opposition cooperation. At most, the parties have been cordial with each other in attending each other’s events, and that is only provided these are NOT SDP’s events.

BryanT proposed that the coming public forum organised by SDP could be exploited to create some momentum for greater Opposition cooperation. The benefit would be two-fold: a more robust set of alternative economic programmes, and as a consequence, greater credibility in the eyes of the electorate for the Opposition.

The SDP website moderator BLATANTLY deleted the link to the FB note. SDP probably finds objectionable the report of lack of progress in developing Opposition cooperation. It was the party that organised the public forum last year to foster cooperation in the first place.

In fact, SDP is probably the main obstacle to greater Opposition cooperation. It pursues a strategy (of deconstructive politics through illegal civil disobedience acts) that is diametric to those carried by the main Opposition parties.

That is the main reason why Opposition cooperation (not to say any semblance of unity) has failed to take off.

It should also be noted that SDP recently raised a ruckus over ST and ZB censoring its letter concerning an interview with its Sec-Gen. SDP’s censorship of BryanT’s comment reeks of HYPOCRISY. This is a political party that does not practise what it purportedly preaches.

The parallel between the censorship of its Sec-Gen's letter and BryanT's comment is ironic, but enligtening. (It should be noted that BryanT has NEVER censored any comments on his FB, so there is no further parallel, or irony)

Such acts by SDP taint the collective reputation of the Singapore Opposition. There is no assurance that should one day an Opposition party take over the government, it will not CHANGE its mind and behave in a exact manner it has fought against whilst in Opposiiton. The electorate should not be fooled into believing that it will be better off with parties like this.

The SDP moderator has previously allowed other commenters to post links on its website, even when some of the links are irrelevant to the topic at hand. The background information concerning the lack of progress in Opposition cooperation is RELEVANT to BryanT’s proposal for it to seize the opportunity in developing collective economic programme.

The question now is this: just who is undermining the Singapore Opposition's interest?

The original comment that was sent to SDP Website with the deleted portions in bold is reproduced here:

--------------------

I would like to propose for the various Opposition parties to exploit the public forum organised by SDP to collectively develop an economic plan.

Although SDP’s proposals to date are the most comprehensive and wide-ranging (I will reserve my comments about “realism” and “workability”), the other parties have also along the way articulated their set of proposals, albeit with varying degrees of success.

Since SDP is organising the forum, it is appropriate that it takes the lead to bring the various parties together for deliberations on the programme.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Derek da Cunha's book "The Price of Victory: The 1997 Singapore General Election and Beyond" lets us understand more about Chee Soon Juan, the Secretary-General of Singapore Democratic Party.

The following are some excerpts from the book.

On 24 July 1994, Deputy Prime Minister Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong described Chee's Dare to Change as "no more than a rehash of some fashionable Western liberal ideas, welfare programmes." He also said: "The foreign media and human rights groups have been talking about it, they tried to press us to do it. They are ideas which have already failed in Western societies, and Chee Soon Juan them together, calls it a book." (Quoted in "Don't be as gullible as the SDP", Straits Times a few days later. In his words: "Points made in Dare to Change backed up the points I made in the book with research findings, observations and analyses and historical data". (Straits Times, 28 July 1994, p.30) On the basis of the statement, the government could have responded by pointing out the factual inaccuracies in Dr Chee's book. The fact that it chose not to do so might suggest that it decided to wait for a more opportune moment.

Page 9:

"and MacPherson, which would be carved out of Marine Parade GRC so as to allow a contest between the PAP's Matthias Yao and the SDP's Chee Soon Juan - contest which the latter had requested."

Page 37:

Chia Shi Teck (NMP): "Had the SDP and Mr Chiam [See Tong] continued to progress and attract talented, credible and honest people, I would not be here. There would be no need for this independent idea. But having seen the recent direction of the party, I think it is not good for the country..." --> "Shi Teck's slate as alternative to opposition," Straits Times, 7 November 1996

Page 36:

"... false submission he made to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy, which among other things, included what Chee later tried to explain away as a "typo"; his misuse of research funds of the National University of Singapore (NUS) to send his wife's thesis to the United States when he was a neuro-psychology lecturer at the university; and his inflated taxi fare claims to the NUS (where the amount was said to have been jacked up a few dollars each time he took a cab).

The people of MacPherson has passed a "solid" verdict on Chee's integrity. Chee, Wong Hong Toy, S. Kunalen and Kwan Yue Keng fined by Parliament's Committee of Priveleges over their conduct during testimony to the Select Committee on Health Care Subisidy.

Page 42:

"The despair among the SDP chief's supporters and members of his family had clearly to do with the size of his defeat, and the fact that the PAP had turned the contest in MacPherson into a referendum on Chee's character. Being defeated almost 2:1 in a bitterly-fought contest meant that the Chee camp could not take even a slither of comfort or consolation from the result. It was a conclusive defeat."

Page 49:

"But it is the speeches of the politicians, rather than just the rally atmosphere, that either animate a crowd or turn it off. For emotionally-charged speeches in the 1997 general election, few could match those delivered by SDP chief Dr Chee Soon Juan . (The emotional element aside, he was clearly also one of the better rally speakers, holding his audience in thrall.) In his last rally at MacPherson, on 31 December, Dr Chee tried to focus the minds of his audience on the fact that after 2 January, his life would not be the same again. As he began to wind up his speech, Dr Chee asked his audience whether they would vote for him. "Yes", came the answer from a section of the crowd. "I still can't hear you", Chee retorted. "Yes," came the louder answer. "I still can't hear you," he said. Louder still was the affirmative reply. As I was about to leave this scene of crowd-speaker interaction, I happened to hear a young man who was nearby make a perceptive observationto his lady companion. "Less than half say yes". This was at once prophetic and a salutary example of the silent majority, no less."

Page 60:

If one looks back, historially, over the previous three elections, with minor exceptions, leaders of major Opposition parties (and, here, I am excluding Mr Harbans Singh's United People's Front) usually took at least 40% of the vote in two-candidate single-seat contests. This should be the basis for comparison. If the leader of a major Opposition political party secures less than 40% of the vote, that does not constitute a good result.

Dr Chee, Secretary-General of the SDP, a party which between 1991 and 1996 had been the principal standard bearer of the Opposition cause in Singapore, secured 34.9% of the vote. And his vote appears a shade worse when one looks at the percentage of spoilt and blank votes in each of the constituencies in relation to total votes cast.

When an Opposition candidate has a real chance of getting elected or when the competition is keener, the percentage of spoilt and blank votes shrinks in proportion to the total votes cast. Thus, in Hougang and Potong Pasir, where the Opposition was elected, the percentage of spoilt and blank votes were the smallest amongst the 15 contested constituencies. MacPherson, where Dr Chee contested, ranks fourth highest in terms of the percentage of spoilt and blank votes.

Page 63: It was a clear rejection of the SDP which, under Dr Chee, was perceived to champion Western-style liberal democracy.

PAge 78: What precipated the event was Chee's dismissal from the NUS in March 1993, with the university accusing him of using S$226 of university research funds to despatch his wife's doctoral thesis to Pennsylvania State University the previous September. In protest at his expulsion, Chee went on a hunger strike. It was this that caused a schism within the SDP. Mr Chiam had disagreed with the way Chee was protesting his dismissal. Indeed, many other people criticised Dr Chee's hungry strike, seeing in it an exercise in self-publicity. --> Forum letters: "If Dr Chee believes he is innocent, what is stopping him from seeking legal redress?"

But what probably topped it all, in almost a chronicle of self-inflicted wounds, was Dr Chee and his SDP colleagues' appearance before, and submissions to, the Cost Review Committee and the Parliamentary Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy less than a year later. After many hours of questioning by those committees, it was concluded that the SDP team's research was flawed and that it had made glaring errors. The most significant of the errors was one suggesting that in 1990, the government's share of total health spending was 5%, instead of 25.4%, with Chee later telling Parliament's Committee of Privileges that this had been a "typo", or typographical error.

And when faced with such outcomes, Dr Chee would provide variations of a standard statement, such as the one issued in November 1995: "In the face of the PAP onslaught, the SDP assures Singaporeans that it will stand its ground. We have set our objective, which is to speak up for Singaporeans who might not otherwise get a chance to air their views, and we will be disciplined to fous on what we have to do." This might have seemed like a gutsy statement, but it would have rung hollow to those who had just witnessed the exchange. Also, whatever sympathy members of the public might have had for Dr Chee in a perceived unequal fight, might have been dissipated following the release of his statement.

Clearly, Dr Chee might have done better if he had been more selective in the battles he chose to wage with the government. Instead, he locked horns on a variety of issues. This, of course, leads one to ask why he did so? There were probably several reasons. I will offer two. One, was that he might have been bent on changing Singapore's political culture, from one which was circumscribed with out-of-bound markers, to one where limits were less apparent, trying to be the example to others to speak up. Two, he might well have felt that publicity, even bad publicity, would be good for the SDP and would translate into votes for the party at the polls.

As to the first of these reasons, Dr Chee obviously misread the ground. Most Singaporeans would seem generally satisfied with the status quo and how politics are conducted. If they want changes, these are of style, or a fine-tuning of the context within which political debate and activity takes place, not significant modifications to the system. On the second reason, he may have over-stated the significance of a high profile as against an image of sincerity.

On the day he stepped into the political spotlight, at an SDP press conference to announce the party's candidates for the by-election in Marine Parade GRC, Dr Chee was asked why he decided to align himself with the Opposition. He answered: "Mr Goh Chok Tong has called on younger Singaporeans who are capable, competent and of ministerial quality to serve Singapore in politics. I have decided to heed his call". People might well have read this as too self-regarding an answer and it was probably Dr Chee's first mistake.

Not My SDP calls for Chee Soon Juan to vacate his position as Secretary-General for his doubtful integrity.

Hitherto, CSJ had repeatedly lamented that the MSM had imposed a media blackout on the SDP.

Although he would rather not admit it, the editorial ban was mainly on SDP; other opposition parties were given some airtime (or rather, page space) to cover their electoral plans, recruitment of new members, in-house seminars and even their counter-arguments to government policies.

The recent interview with CSJ broke new grounds for SDP. CSJ was probably elated when he was offered a rare opportunity to express himself via the MSM (ie. ZB, and then reprinted by ST). In the interview, he sounded as if he deserved the new attention.

As events subsequently unfolded, we can see that he didn't.

He is now back to his old (recalcitrant) ways. He seems rather irritated that his letter has not been published in its entirety, and is presently accusing it of “censoring the SDP's views” (yet again).

His original bugbear (and defensiveness) arose out of questions being raised over his sources of income. Instead of using his follow up letter to shed some light on this, he has gone on a not-unexpected tirade about himself “fighting for democracy and the political rights of Singaporeans.”

The leopard does not change its spots.

If some politicians purport to fight for the rights of Singaporeans, then Singaporeans have the right to subject such politicians to scrutiny – to ask for a reasonable degree of openness and accountable.

Why is it so difficult for CSJ to publicly cite his “research (….like human behaviour)” work that provides him income so that the burden of doubt is lifted?

Instead of clearing the air, his latest attempt at diversion to his favourite (but tiresome) causes reinforces the perception of evasiveness.

SDP has no one but itself to blame for being ostracised by the MSM in future, and for being ignored by the people as per current.

Monday, February 1, 2010

A news report recently mentioned that several opposition parties are eyeing Tampines GRC, including the Singapore Democratic Party. The SDP is believe to target the area due to its limited resources and the fact that Tampines GRC is a "small and compact space".

NotMySDP conducted an email survey on a group of 15 people residing in Tampines GRC and found out from them about the groundwork that SDP is doing. These are some of the feedback and comments from the Tampines residents:

"SDP movements in Tampines is just CSJ standing at Tampines MRT shouting slogans"

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Singapore Democratic Party activist Ng E Jay poured cold water on the Reform Party, in a letter to the Straits Times forum, saying it's "no big deal" for a former government scholarship holder, Mr Tony Tan, to join the Reform Party.

In Ng E Jay's letter, he said that the recent news report on a former government scholarship holder joining the Reform Party as a "non-event".

He also betrayed the opposition by agreeing with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's assessment that "we should not judge political candidates based on their paper credentials, but on what they can do for society."

Perhaps referring to Mr Tony Tan from Reform Party, Ng E Jay continued to state that "It is time we look past superficial measures of success like academic credentials, and pay more attention to an individual's track record at work and in community service, which are more accurate indicators of his calibre."

Read the entire forum letter written by Ng E Jay below:

Jan 30, 2010

Ex-scholarship holder in opposition? No big deal

I REFER to the report on a former government scholarship holder joining an opposition party ('Ex-Admin Service officer joins Reform', Jan 20).

While some have hailed this as a significant plus for the opposition, I view it as a non-event.

First, many talented graduates have joined the ranks of the opposition in recent years, but many of them have opted to keep out of the spotlight, preferring to build a credible profile first. For example, Workers' Party secretary-general and Member of Parliament for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang, mentioned recently that his party has been recruiting new members, many of whom are probably academically well qualified.

Second, I agree with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's assessment that we should not judge political candidates based on their paper credentials, but on what they can do for society. Using Mr Lee's yardstick, I judge many opposition candidates favourably as they provide an alternative voice for the people, regardless of their qualifications. In fact, good grades are irrelevant to being a good politician, as the work of serving the community requires the heart more than the head.

It is time we look past superficial measures of success like academic credentials, and pay more attention to an individual's track record at work and in community service, which are more accurate indicators of his calibre.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

The National University of Singapore Students' Political Association (NUSPA) and Socialist Democratic Club recently organised a policy forum - "Policy Face-off - Immigration Policies: How many is enough?"

Interestingly, Jarrod Luo from the Young Democrats, youth wing of Singapore Democratic Party, managed to enter the theatrette.

Jarrod Luo was quick to pose a question to Ms. Sylvia Lim, Chairman of Workers' Party, regarding her views on Minimum Wage, in a brazen attempt to challenge her. Some of the participants were puzzled because the forum was dealing with "Immigration Policy", and the question appeared out of topic.

Charismatic as she is, Ms. Sylvia Lim snubbed Jarrod Luo, by disagreeing with Jarrod Luo's view that Minimum Wage policy should be enforced in Singapore. Ms. Sylvia Lim even went to the extent of agreeing with the PAP Government's take on Minimum Wage. After this "smack-in-the-face" response, Jarrod Luo hurriedly retreated to his seat. It's interesting to see how shallow Jarrod Luo appeared to be. Perhaps just reiterating the party's stand on Minimum Wage, Jarrod Luo didn't seem to be able to convince the audience on Minimum Wage policy.

Jarrod Luo could have read more about Workers' Party before jumping on to Ms. Sylvia Lim.

In the Workers' Party Manifesto 2006, under the heading of "Labour Policy and CPF", it was stated that "* The minimum wage in Collective Agreements should be strictly enforced. Union leaders should educate employees on their minimum wage and to make a report if they have been "short-changed"."

Minimum Wage Policy and "minimum wage in Collective Agreements" are both different issues.

By not understanding counterparts in the opposition, Jarrod Luo humiliated himself in the theatrette, with close to 300 staring at him.

The Singapore Democratic Party's Christmas greeting video has disturbed several online Muslims netizens, local and abroad.

In the video, John Tan, SDP's Assistant Secretary General (#2 man in SDP), repeatedly used the words "Jesus" and "Bible" in a span of 7 minutes. The Christian Messiah complex of the video has obviously offended Singaporeans of other religious groups.

John Tan mentioned that being "jolly" means different things to "different" people, and added that "being jolly is to continue to fulfill the mission Christ came to impart to us".

What does he mean by "different" people? Singaporeans might choose to believe in different religions, but how does that made us "different" people?

And do we Muslims get less "jolly" because we are not fulfilling "Christ" mission?

Our society is multiracial and multireligious. John Tan's insensitive remarks could have triggered an "Allah" saga, as observed in Malaysia, if not for the poor outreach of the party and lack of awareness of SDP online.

John Tan also claims that Muslims follow the Christian's path of non-violence. Citing the example of Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who was suspected of attempting to assasinate the founder of Pakistan and who was viewed by Pakistanis as a traitor, John Tan gave a distorted image of reality.

In an attempt to win over Christians to the Singapore Democratic Party, John Tan asked netizens to "join" him in his crusade.

By drawing religious lines, John Tan has lost my vote indefinitely, and many Muslims' votes for his irresponsible sensationalised remarks and illogical comments.

Singapore Democratic Party is eyeing Tampines GRC in the upcoming General Elections, reported The Straits Times.

"The Straits Times understands that the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has approached the NSP, saying it may be keen to contest in Tampines GRC."

Other than the National Solidarity Party (NSP), the Reform Party and the Workers' Party are also interested in fielding candidates for Tampines GRC.

In the General Election 2006, the GRC was contested by both PAP and Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), which the NSP was part of it then.

NotMySDP understands that the Tampines GRC turf has been worked by NSP and the WP over the years. NSP has fielded candidates in the Tampines GRC, while WP has always been active in the Northeast region. SDP has never contested in the area before.

As to why SDP is jumping on Tampines GRC, the best explanation is:

Asked about the opposition challenge, Tampines GRC MP Ong Kian Min said: ‘They are interested because this is a small and compact space. With their limited resources, it helps when they don’t need to spread out to cover the area.’

What else to expect from opportunistic SDP? Besides selling the party newspapers, visiting prisons, and attending international forums, the SDP has not did their ground work in Tampines.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Singapore Democratic Party proudly pasted a press release by the Council for a Community of Democracies, condemning the jailing of Chee Soon Juan, the Secretary General of SDP.

I must salute the Singapore Democratic Party over the way it profiles itself online, as a very glamorous organisation, with so many alliances with international bodies, yet appears to be victimised in Singapore.

So what really is this "Council for a Community Democracies"?

The Council for a Community Democracies (CCD) are staffed with 25 civil society leaders, who are all from the United States of America. With no representation from Asia, I wonder how the council can be effective in pushing for democracy outside the USA.

The CCD seeks "to establish a global network of democratic countries with the principal aim of fortifying democratic governance everywhere". However, since its inception in 2000, the CCD still has no Asian and European representation in its council. It is far from a "global network", it's just a "USA network".

A quick glance through its activities shows that the CCD is more talk than action. There were no signs of positive results from its activities. The CCD often merely acts as a body to condemn the actions of other countries/governments/organisations.

Hey... But Chee Soon Juan won the Defender of Democracy Award!

The award is given by Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA). According to its website, "The Defender of Democracy Award is presented to individuals who, through their own commitment and active engagement, have made significant progress in strengthening democracy and democratic practices. "

Chee has intimate ties with many foreign organisations and foreigners. A very good example is Robert Amsterdam, who frequently condemns the Singapore government in favour of Chee. With his ties, it's not difficult to imagine how he won this award.

Just ask yourself - Has Chee made SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS? Through his OWN commitment and ACTIVE engagement?

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

The latest proxy of Singapore Democratic Party has declared on his blog that he had defected to Singapore People's Party (SPP).

With the support of anonymous netizens, Alex Tan Zhixiang launched numerous attacks against Young PAP members. SDP's Young Democrats also pitched in to discuss with him via facebook regarding political issues.

SPP is now led by the former Secretary-General of the SDP, Mr Chiam See Tong. Chiam was the one who groomed SDP's Chee Soon Juan. When Chee Soon Juan performed a high-publicity hunger strike over the misappropriation of funds, which led to him being sacked by his employer NUS, Chiam opposed to it. However, Chee Soon Juan soon became the publicity boy for the party and caused a split within the party, finally resulting in the ouster of Chiam.

Chiam sued SDP, and the court ruled in favour of Chiam that it was illegal for the party to expel him. That meant Chiam could retain his seat in parliament. By the next General Election, Chiam founded a new political party, the Singapore People's Party.

Alex Tan Zhixiang also referred to Chiam See Tong, as the Respectable Chiam. It is no wonder why he had picked SPP over SDP.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Hello everyone. I'm Nur Aishah and one of the founding members of the NotMySDP team. I'm compelled to stand forward, writing in my own name, to defend something that is so important to me, and which had been insulted by Singapore Democratic Party's Assistant Secretary General, John Tan, in his Christmas video message.

In a video with a duration span of less than 8 minutes, John Tan mentioned the word "Jesus" more than 13 times.

According to SDP's website, John Tan was a bible scholar and a missionary intern. He was previously a lecturer at James Cook University but was expelled after he was charged in court for his group's "Tak Boleh Tahan" protest. He is now a "social psychologist", as stated on the party's main site.

If John Tan had made the Christmas message a personal one, I wouldn't mind. BUT, he was speaking for the party - Singapore Democratic Party - and so whatever he said must be held accountable to Singaporeans, of all races and religions.

Beginning with Jesus' story from the bible, John Tan went ahead to invoke Christianity beliefs that justified SDP's ideology.

John Tan also went ahead to say how Jesus enlightened other religious prophets to follow his steps.

I wonder why has no one charged him for saying such irresponsible and anti-religious harmony.

To John Tan & SDP members who subscribed to such anti-religious harmony sentiments, you are the FOXes!

SDP members linked to ISIS: "Muhammad Shamin Mohamed Sidek 29, and Muhammad Harith Jailani, 18, were detained in August this year. Investigations showed that they had harboured the intention to make their way to Syria to join the terrorist group Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and engage in violence there, MHA said".

Activists that are ashamed to be called SDP members:

Ng E JayPleaded guilty to TBT trial immediately after trial starts

Yap Keng HoRaised nonsensical questions in TBT trial such that Chia Ti Lik asked him to shut up

Priveen Suraj (President, YD)Graduated from Millenia InstituteJoined SDP due to Mother Narayanasamy Gogelavany aka Monica Kumar, who contested in GE2006. During nomination day, she amended her name on the form but did not seek the Elections Official to countersign, which nearly resulted in SDP's disqualification to contest Sembawang GRC (Source).

Contribute!

TOC deemed us as pro-Govt or pro-PAP. Sorry we are pro-Singapore. We have replied to you to state that we are not affiliated to any political parties & we are disappointed that you failed to include in your article. And we are sorry that you choose to be a stooge of SDP. Enjoy producing thrash when the world wants to recycle them!